A Single Amino Acid Determines Lysophospholipid Specificity of the S1P1 (EDG1) and LPA1 (EDG2) Phospholipid Growth Factor Receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phospholipid growth factors sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) and lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) are ligands for the related G protein-coupled receptors S1P(1)/EDG1 and LPA(1)/EDG2, respectively. We have developed a model of LPA(1) that predicts interactions between three polar residues and LPA. One of these, glutamine 125, which is conserved in the LPA receptor subfamily (LPA(1)/EDG2, LPA(2)/EDG4, and LPA(3)/EDG7), hydrogen bonds with the LPA hydroxyl group. Our previous S1P(1) study identified that the corresponding glutamate residue, conserved in all S1P receptors, ion pairs with the S1P ammonium. These two results predict that this residue might influence ligand recognition and specificity. Characterization of glutamate/glutamine interchange point mutants of S1P(1) and LPA(1) validated this prediction as the presence of glutamate was required for S1P recognition, whereas LPA recognition was possible with either glutamine or glutamate. The most likely explanation for this dual specificity behavior is a shift in the equilibrium between the acid and conjugate base forms of glutamic acid due to other amino acids surrounding that position in LPA(1), producing a mixture of receptors including those having an anionic glutamate that recognize S1P and others with a neutral glutamic acid that recognize LPA. Thus, computational modeling of these receptors provided valid information necessary for understanding the molecular pharmacology of these receptors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".